Apparently Zynga filed for a trademark in the name “ville” in Europe. [http://bit.ly/eE0fId]. Probably strikes many as extreme (Techdirt thought so), but I’m in support.
I actually wrote a paper about idea theft in the app market (I included Facebook games, since they are so similar to the things we traditionally think of as apps) for a law school seminar and, for the most part, copying on these platforms is rampant and difficult to stop. Can’t copyright or patent a game concept, and yet consumers are presented with knock-off applications hoping to make a dime on a consumer’s confusion constantly.
A trademark is one of the few routes open to a social game company hoping to prevent a copycat from taking advantage of a brand they spent money cultivating by launching a knock off meant to confuse consumers. And as I’m sure the trademark is only for things classified as electronic games, who would we worry about such a monopoly hurting? Isn’t one of the main justifications for trademark that we don’t want businesses free-riding on a brand developed by another company… which is exactly what a company launching an electronic game named “____ville” would be doing?
To further develop the point, Angy Birds had 3 or 4 knock-offs ripping off customers at any one time at it’s height. I’m sure the ripped-off consumers wouldn’t have been upset if you told them that Rovio had gotten a trademark in “[Emotion] [farm animal]” if it meant they got their money back.
danielmarkmiller.net 